Americans United - Free Speechhttp://au.org/tags/free-speech
enActually, It’s All Right To Argue With Street Preachershttp://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/actually-it-s-all-right-to-argue-with-street-preachers
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>When I was a college student many years ago, we could look forward to an annual spring ritual: an itinerant evangelical preacher would appear on campus, set up base in an open area near the library and cut loose with some hellfire sermons.</p>
<p>His name was <a href="http://www.brojed.org/cms/">Jed Smock</a>, and he often singled out women whose attire he didn’t care for. Smock could be annoying, but the area he spoke in was a typical campus green. It was often used for demonstrations, activity fairs, remarks by campus politicians and other free-speech activities. As a senior, I edited the school newspaper, and I remember writing an editorial supporting Smock’s right to speak on campus – although I was far from convinced he was worth listening to.</p>
<p>Smock and other wandering evangelists are still canvassing America’s colleges. (My daughter encountered Smock at the University of Missouri a few years ago.)</p>
<p>Recently, one of them, a man named <a href="http://www.tomthepreacher.com/">Tom Short</a>, surfaced at the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks. Like a lot of these characters, Short has a real problem with evolution and devoted much of his time to attacking it. Some students decided to argue with him, and a mini-debate ensued.</p>
<p>A student named Jacob Notermann had a strange reaction to all of this. He <a href="http://dakotastudent.com/8604/features/creationism-vs-evolution-an-on-campus-debate/">seems to believe</a> that the students who questioned Short were somehow violating his freedom of speech and religious freedom rights!</p>
<p>“My point is that those who attacked Tom had no right to,” Notermann wrote. “They disrespected not only freedom of speech and freedom of religion, but they also disrespected someone who is praying for them. If a student argues with him regarding his beliefs, they are only fueling Tom’s fire and proving his point. They guy just wants to help you, don’t grill him over it.”</p>
<p><img alt="" src="/files/street%20preacher_0.jpg" style="width: 800px; height: 1195px;" /></p>
<p><em>Engage or ignore? It's your call. </em></p>
<p>I’ve encountered this line of thinking before in Religious Right publications. The belief seems to be that if someone presents spirited opposition to your point of view, that person doesn’t respect your right to speak.</p>
<p>It’s an illogical argument. Unless the campus police dragged Short away (they didn’t), he had the right to speak. But some of the students thought he was wrong and challenged him to defend his views, which, I assume, he did.</p>
<p>Notermann complained that students asked Short questions like, “If God exists, why is there suffering in the world?” and “Can God cure cancer?” He writes, quite condescendingly, in my view, “While I watched and listened, all I could do was smile at the amount of pretentiousness and bullying happening around me.”</p>
<p>So it’s pretentious and a form of bullying to ask a man who is preaching in public to defend his point of view?</p>
<p>To me, it sounds like this was an exchange of ideas. It was perhaps heated at times, but it in no way infringed on Short’s religious freedom. What unfolded on the UND campus that day sounds like a pretty healthy development for a college.</p>
<p>Religious speech is like other forms of speech, and it should receive the same level of protection against government censorship and a heckler’s veto. But religious speech is not somehow special or better than other forms of speech simply because it is religious. It is not above criticism or even a blistering counter-argument.</p>
<p>People who step into the public sphere, as this evangelist chose to do, should expect some verbal pushback. They should expect that a listener may disagree and will use his or her right to free speech to say that.</p>
<p>The Constitution guarantees to all of us the right to speak on religious or non-religious topics. It doesn’t guarantee us the right to a docile audience, and it certainly doesn’t put religious speech on such a lofty plane that it is above all criticism.</p>
</div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/creationism-evolution">Creationism &amp; Evolution</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/religious-distributions-events-and-evangelism-during-school-day">Religious Distributions, Events and Evangelism during the School Day</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/use-school-buildings-religious-groups-during-non-school-hours">Use of School Buildings by Religious Groups</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/jed-smock">Jed Smock</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/university-of-north-dakota">University of North Dakota</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/tom-short">tom Short</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/jacob-notermann">Jacob Notermann</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/university-of-missouri">University of Missouri</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/free-speech">Free Speech</a></span></div></div>Tue, 20 Sep 2016 13:45:34 +0000Rob Boston12352 at http://au.orghttp://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/actually-it-s-all-right-to-argue-with-street-preachers#commentsStewart v. Johnson Countyhttp://au.org/our-work/legal/lawsuits/stewart-v-johnson-county
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>After the Johnson County Commission removed a government-sponsored Ten Commandments display from the County Courthouse, the Commission created a public forum in the Courthouse lobby for displays relating to the development of American law. The Commission then accepted a display featuring the Ten Commandments, quotations from historical legal sources, and Biblical verses—bearing the message that the United States was founded on Christian principles. </p><p>Ralph Stewart, a Johnson County resident, requested permission to display posters documenting the historical roots of church/state separation. The Commission solicited advice from the Alliance Defense Fund, and then rejected Mr. Stewart’s proposed display—even though it features quotations from many of the same historical legal sources as does the Ten Commandments display.</p><p class="MsoNormal">We filed suit in January 2011. Mr. Stewart’s <a href="/files/legal_docs/Stewart%20v%20%20Johnson%20County%20%28Complaint%20%20--%20Final%2C%20for%20filing%20Jan.%2013%2C%202011%29.pdf">complaint</a> alleged that the County Commission is discriminating on the basis of content and viewpoint, in violation of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause, and is using its public-forum policy to promote religion, in violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Mr. Stewart sought an injunction requiring the County either to permit the display of Mr. Stewart’s posters or, in the alternative, to close the public-forum and remove the Ten Commandments display.</p><p class="MsoNormal">In November 2011, we reached <a href="http://www.au.org/church-state/december-2011-church-state/featured/triumph-in-tennessee">a favorable settlement agreement</a> with the County. That agreement requires the County to display Stewart’s church-state separation posters. The agreement also requires the Commission to accept future displays relating to law or history, narrows the County's control over aesthetic standards, and ensures that the County will post a disclaimer in the courthouse explaining that the displays are sponsored by private citizens. Finally, the agreement prevents the County from rejecting a display simply because the Commission dislikes its content or viewpoint and requires the County to explain in writing and propose an alternative design if it rejects a display for aesthetic reasons.</p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-federal-court field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Federal Court:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/federal-courts/us-district-court-eastern-district-tennessee">U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee</a></div></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/government-sponsored-religious-displays">Government-Sponsored Religious Displays</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/history-and-origins-church-state-separation">History and Origins of Church-State Separation</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/legal-foundations-church-state-separation">Legal Foundations of Church-State Separation</a></span></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-aus-role field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">AU&#039;s Role:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/au-role/counsel">Counsel</a></div></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/ten-commandments">ten commandments</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/free-speech">Free Speech</a></span></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-involvement-begin field-type-date field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">AU&#039;s Involvement Began:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">January 2011</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-case-status field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Status:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/court-case-status/ongoing">Ongoing</a></div></div></div>Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:12:14 +0000Americans United5727 at http://au.orghttp://au.org/our-work/legal/lawsuits/stewart-v-johnson-county#commentsThe Supreme Court And Summum: When Freedom Of Speech And Church-State Separation Collidehttp://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/the-supreme-court-and-summum-when-freedom-of-speech-and-church-state
<a href="/about/people/bathija">Sandhya Bathija</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>[caption id="" align="alignright" width="251" caption="Summum's temple is a Pyramid in Salt Lake City. (image from the Wikimedia Commons)"]<a class="flickr-image" title="Summum Pyramid" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/25327091@N08/3025054063/"></a>[/caption]</p>
<p>Today several Americans United staff members and I walked three blocks from our office to the U.S. Supreme Court to listen to oral arguments in the Ten Commandments case, Pleasant Grove City v. Summum. Americans United has filed a <a href="http://www.au.org/site/DocServer/Pleasant_Grove_v._Summum__AU_Amicus_Br.__No._07-665__200.pdf?docID=2821">friend-of-the-court brief </a>in support of neither the city nor the Summum religion, but rather to protect the separation of church and state.</p>
<p>The case is very complicated, with First Amendment free speech concerns intersecting with church-state law.</p>
<p>Religious Right attorney Jay Sekulow represented a Utah town that allowed a fraternal group to erect a Commandments monument in a public park in the early 1970s. The Summum religion wanted to display a permanent monument of its own teachings, called the Seven Aphorisms, but was denied access.</p>
<p>Unlike other Commandments cases argued in recent times, Summum did not assert its right to display the monument on church-state grounds. In fact, neither party even raised a federal Establishment Clause claim. Instead, the legal argument was framed under the free speech doctrine, and today Sekulow and Summum attorney Pamela Harris simply argued over whether the Commandments monument was private speech or government speech.</p>
<p>Americans United staff members have been urging the news media to focus on the vital church-state implications of the case. After listening to the oral arguments today, AU Executive Director Barry W. Lynn spoke with reporters outside the high court and later was interviewed by AP Radio. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/opinion/12wed1.html?scp=2&amp;sq=summum&amp;st=cse"><em>The New York Times </em></a>mentioned our stance in its editorial on the topic yesterday.</p>
<p>In addition, AU Legal Director Ayesha N. Khan was quoted on NPR's "<a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&amp;t=4&amp;islist=true&amp;id=3&amp;d=11-12-2008">Morning Edition</a>" and in <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1112/p03s05-usju.html"><em>The Christian Science Monitor</em>. </a></p>
<p>Khan also explained on the <a href="http://www.acsblog.org/">American Constitution Society's</a> blog AU's views about this strange case. Give it a read, and you'll understand better the issues at stake.</p>
<p><strong></strong></p>
<p><strong>Utah Case Presents High Court With First Amendment Issue, Just Not The One That Should Be Considered</strong></p>
<p>by Ayesha N. Khan, legal director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State</p>
<p>On Wednesday, Nov. 12, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum. The Court stands poised to issue a decision that could have major ramifications for freedom of speech cases — and that could have unforeseen and unintended consequences on Establishment Clause jurisprudence.</p>
<p>Pleasant Grove City is a small city in Utah. The city owns and manages Pioneer Park, which contains a variety of monuments, plaques, and other permanent displays, such as a large granite Ten Commandments monument that memorialize objects or events of historical or cultural significance. Many of the monuments were donated to Pleasant Grove by private parties, but all are now owned by the city.</p>
<p>Summum is a religious organization whose beliefs are encapsulated in the "Seven Aphorisms," a set of higher-order principles that the followers of Summum believe to have been entrusted to Moses before the Ten Commandments. The church has been quite active in attempting to place Seven Aphorisms monuments alongside Ten Commandments displays in public areas. And that is precisely what Summum attempted to do in Pleasant Grove.</p>
<p>In 1971, the Fraternal Order of Eagles donated to Pleasant Grove a Ten Commandments monument that has stood in Pioneer Park ever since. In 2003 and again in 2005, Summum attempted to donate its Seven Aphorisms monument to the city; the group's only request was that its monument stand near the Ten Commandments one. The city denied both requests, claiming the Summum display did not relate to the history of Pleasant Grove and that Summum was not an organization with strong civic ties to the city.</p>
<p>Summum then sued the city, losing at the district-court level, but winning before the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The arguments before the Tenth Circuit revolved around issues of freedom of speech and whether or not Pioneer Park is a "public forum" — government property either traditionally or explicitly designated as a place for private individuals to exercise their right to freedom of speech. The Tenth Circuit held that a public park is a traditional public forum, and that the privately donated displays in the park were private, not governmental speech — so the City could not exclude offered items on the basis of their content or viewpoint.</p>
<p>Summum contends before the Supreme Court that the Tenth Circuit got it right: monuments donated by private parties remain the speech of the donor unless they are affirmatively and proactively adopted by the city, something that has not happened here. Thus, Pleasant Grove has made Pioneer Park a public forum by allowing private parties to "speak" in the park by erecting monuments. Accordingly, Pleasant Grove cannot exclude Summum's display.</p>
<p>Pleasant Grove argues that monuments donated by private parties to the government become the speech of the government. That means that no public forum was created, because all of the monuments on display are the speech of the government — no private parties have been allowed to "speak." It also means that Pleasant Grove would be free to deny access to groups like Summum on the theory that private groups cannot force the government to adopt private speech as the government's own.</p>
<p>These are the issues that the Supreme Court will decide . . . and they totally miss the point.</p>
<p>So what is the point? Americans United for Separation of Church and State, along with the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty and People for the American Way Foundation have filed an amicus curiae brief in support of neither party, arguing that this is a case more properly analyzed under the Establishment Clause, not the Free Speech Clause.</p>
<p>In fact, the only reason that this case is not a straightforward Establishment Clause lawsuit has to do with a Tenth Circuit case that should have been overruled decades ago. In 1973 the Tenth Circuit ruled in Anderson v. Salt Lake City that the Ten Commandments are primarily secular and that their display could never give rise to an establishment of religion. The Supreme Court itself obliterated that premise in 1980, when it stated in Stone v. Graham that "[t]he Ten Commandments are undeniably a sacred text in the Christian and Jewish faiths, and . . . do not confine themselves to arguably secular matters" and struck down a Kentucky statute requiring the display of the Commandments in public schools.</p>
<p>Summum, no stranger to litigation over placement of the Seven Aphorisms, had raised the Establishment Clause issue alongside its freedom of speech claims in two prior cases that reached the Tenth Circuit. In both instances, Summum v. Callaghan and Summum v. City of Ogden, the Tenth Circuit felt constrained by the earlier ruling in Anderson but also felt that Summum deserved to prevail. So the panels accomplished through the Free Speech Clause what should have been addressed under the Establishment Clause. In this case, having won twice on freedom of speech, Summum decided that it would bring only the Free Speech issue against Pleasant Grove, and ignore the Establishment Clause.</p>
<p>And so here we are: bad precedent in the Tenth Circuit giving rise to potentially bad precedent in the Supreme Court. If Summum wins, then governments would likely face demands to erect permanent monuments of a proselytizing and even hateful nature in public parks throughout the country. If Pleasant Grove prevails, some governmental entities may be inclined to use the donation model as a device to allow them to pick and choose which religious messages they would like to promote.</p>
<p>We would have much preferred to see the case litigated as a straight-up Establishment Clause challenge. There are two potential Establishment Clause claims here: one would allege that the display of the FOE's Ten Commandments monument reflects an endorsement of religion; the other would allege that the exclusion of Summum's monument was caused by impermissible religious hostility. The former claim may present an uphill battle, in light of the 2005 ruling in Van Orden v. Perry, where the Supreme Court upheld a FOE Ten Commandments monument displayed on the State Capitol grounds along with a variety of other items expressing Texas's ideals. But the latter claim bears a chance of success, particularly because the facts hint at religious animus having motivated the City's denial of Summum's request.</p>
<p>Summum is of course free to amend its complaint to add a federal Establishment Claim if its free-speech claim is rejected by the High Court. In the meantime, however, the Supreme Court must wend its way through this quagmire.</p>
</div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/establishment-clause">Establishment Clause</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/free-speech">Free Speech</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/courts">In the Courts</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/jay-sekulow">Jay Sekulow</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/pleasant-grove-city-v-summum">Pleasant Grove City v. Summum</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/supreme-court-united-states">The Supreme Court of the United States</a></span></div></div>Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:30:38 +0000Sandhya Bathija2307 at http://au.orghttp://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/the-supreme-court-and-summum-when-freedom-of-speech-and-church-state#comments